We use cookies to ensure we give you the best experience on our website. You can find out about our cookies and how to disable cookies in our Privacy Policy. If you continue to use this website without disabling cookies, we will assume you are happy to receive them. Close.

BREEAM can be seen as an aside rather than an integral part of the design process. This is perhaps reinforced by the main focus often being on the Assessor rather than the AP. Indeed, even appointing an AP can be seen as a “box ticking exercise” rather than helping the DT create a more sustainableproject. Perhaps this can be compared to the old joke where the barman asks the customer whether he wants a tray for their drinks and he replies, “don’t you think I’ve already got enough to carry?” BREEAM ought to be seen as the tray helping the DT carry the project instead of “yet another thing to carry”.

Clients see BREEAM as a box ticking exercise and find it hard to see the value for their development and it doesn’t help when the QA and evidence requirements are so pedantic, we’ve had to drop credits where the client has essentially achieved the credit but the document has been done too late or misses one of the BREEAM requirements e.g. travel plan doesn’t quite tick all the boxes.

There is usually a misconception that the design team believes BREEAM is simply a checklist exercise. It is critical to engage the design team early on to ensure that they understand the complexity of the Standard and that it can add significant richness to the project’s design if discussed with the design team (and other relevant stakeholders) from day one.

Lots of additional work that requires particular documentation that wouldn't otherwise be required for a project e.g. materials efficiency can be demonstrated on any project but wouldn't necessarily be documented formally and as such creates a paper exercise that can be viewed negatively

Applied for innovationcredits are almost impossible to convince a client to go for because of the cost to apply for them. It may be that another un-connected project has already applied for the same or similar innovation; although there is a list of some successful innovations not all have been published. The perception for the potential of an applied for innovation to be rejected is too great for most Clients to consider.

Criteria selection is done by AP/ Assessors; based on the investmentcost and “easiest job to get the certificate” (devaluing the certification only to the paperwork, I've seen this in other pre-assessments several times, generally it's a hard job to explain to the design team, client.

Working with the BREEAM international technical manuals the design team members often comment that the manual is not applicable for the local conditions. We then need to explain the local weighting and standards and that we can comment on new manuals before they are published.

It is hard to justify the rationale of some of the credits. For example, an existing tree needs to be removed (one tree in a very large site) however this can lead to losing BREEAMcredits, despite the client proposing to plant more replacement trees instead.

BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.